Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
<philip.eardley@bt.com> Sat, 24 March 2012 17:09 UTC
Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4392421F852B for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3gUT2VElYK7 for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp62.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFA721F8523 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHT64-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.101) by RDW083A006ED62.smtp-e2.hygiene.service (10.187.98.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:08:52 +0000
Received: from EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.1.102]) by EVMHT64-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.101]) with mapi; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:08:51 +0000
From: philip.eardley@bt.com
To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl, pcn@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:04:24 +0000
Thread-Topic: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
Thread-Index: Ac0JfaQgQkUC+asmSVG/w7TiQNcc9AAYoWr+
Message-ID: <9510D26531EF184D9017DF24659BB87F331DE0C40F@EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25AD1@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
In-Reply-To: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25AD1@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:09:01 -0000
It's Quite a while since I read the edge behavior docs but I don't understand these assumptions. An iea is ask the traffic between two boundary nodes, what's the idea of several? The pcn architecture talks about admission control and flow termination, flow slowing is an interesting idea but seems different to me ________________________________________ From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of karagian@cs.utwente.nl [karagian@cs.utwente.nl] Sent: 24 March 2012 05:19 To: pcn@ietf.org Subject: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn Hi all, >From what I can recall the edge behavior drafts could proceed with their publication based on the assumption that the draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn will be standardized in tsvwg. Due to some changes that are being implemented lately the validity of two main assumptions in the draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn might not hold anymore. However, this is not clear to me. I hope that the validity of the following two main assumptions considered in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn are still valid, without breaking the PCN SM and CL edge behavior specifications: Assumption 1: More than one IEAs between same pair of PCN edge nodes should be supported, each of them using a different PHB-ID value Why?: A requesting individual flow has a higher chance to be admitted to an IEA that is NOT in PCN-admission-state How? When IEA supported by a PCN-ingress-node is in PCN-admission state, then based on local policy, requesting e2e RSVP session (individual flow) should be either rejected or mapped to another IEA that is NOT in PCN-admission-state Assumption 2: PCN-ingress-node should be able to reduce bandwidth of an individual flow without terminating the flow Why?: flows will not be terminated unnecessary and at the same time the IEA bandwidth is reduced to solve the severe congestion How?: When for IEA supported by PCN-ingress-node incoming traffic needs to be reduced then: based on a local policy and for same IEA, selects a number of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) to be either terminated or reserved bandwidth of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) is reduced If these assumptions are not valid anymore then we might need to do changes in the not yet published PCN drafts! Best regards, Georgios
- [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect … karagian
- Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not aff… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not aff… Toby Moncaster
- Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not aff… karagian
- Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not aff… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not aff… karagian